The Stone Roses

Oh look it's the official band of /brit/

>>74484644
they disbanded like a month ago, sorry bud

>>74485049
Yeah, lost count on how many times they disbanded.
In thay doc made during the first reunion they already had a dozen of new songs. But they disbanded before the movie was finished.
The stuff I heard isnt very good and apparently i'm not the only one that didnt like it. The single got panned hard and the new tracks they played live sounded even worse/generic af.
Ians solo career is at least interesting at times, SR new stuff just bland dadrock

I think the thing is that for most people inspiration strikes you rarely, and when you get it at the right age and are in the right environment you can do great things. For some people, like Bowie for example, they cultivate themselves to create more, but artists like the Stone Roses were never trying to maintain themselves to keep creating, they were living in the moment and drew very local inspiration, the records are the product of that. In many ways it makes the records better and perhaps more captivating, but they are really only normal manc lads. When the inspiration goes and they age, they become nothing more than manc dads, who then realise they dont get on anymore and should really move on from music. The reunion stuff is never going to be able to capture what they once had, because it was more about the time they were living in and the inspiration of youth. We learnt from the second album that for these guys their inspiration really became scarce. When your thinking about your grey hairs and kids school bills its hard to make music that really comes from somewhere. Not to mention that due to their immense legacy, its hard for them to make anything that would reflect their new surroundings and age (which are naturally less interesting anyway), rather than just haplessly trying to remake their old sounds. I say let it be.

File: The-Charlatans-Different-Days.jpg (67KB, 498x500px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 498x500px

>>74484644
They split up (again).
They only made one stellar album, the second coming was just okay.
The new singles sucked.
They tried to live of the self-titled album's fame.

Stone Roses are better as an influence than an actual band.

All the bands that came from under their wing were better. The Charlatans for example have had a good output since their first album.

>>74487341
>Stone Roses are better as an influence than an actual band.
They didnt invent anything, just jump the madchester boat at the right time and where good musicians so they got some rock-cred that music magazines like the rolling stone loved to hype.
Also where the only ones to release a 10/10 album from the whole movement, but that was it. A product of their time
Charlatans are a much better band that are still rolling and deserve more respect. They where literally kids when Some Friendly came out and if it wasnt for the filler tracks its superb. Never understood why their second album was panned at the time, I still listen to it every now and then and never skip a song.
Fuck, if it wasnt for filler tracks a lot of madchester albums would be bigger classics than stone roses s/t

>>74487341
Tim Burgess hangs out with Chris & Cosey
Ian Brown is lucky if he can just shake hands with Noel Gallagher

The Charlatans are criminally underrated, whats your favorite album by them? I have a soft spot for "Up to our hips", even if the 2 main singles are the worst tracks in the album